Case 3302081/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A J Symis v RSA Geotechnics Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302081/2025
- Decision date
- 15 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A J Symis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 15 October 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim. The warning was given because it appeared to the Tribunal, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that the claim had not been actively pursued and/or there had been a failure to respond to Tribunal correspondence.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, but did not reply. Employment Judge Graham Date was satisfied that the grounds for strike out under Rule 38 applied and that striking out the claim was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claim under Rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued and/or because of failure to respond to Tribunal correspondence. The judgment did not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment struck out the claim under Rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued and/or because of failure to respond to Tribunal correspondence. The judgment did not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claim under Rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued and/or because of failure to respond to Tribunal correspondence. The judgment did not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment struck out the claim under Rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued and/or because of failure to respond to Tribunal correspondence. The judgment did not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.